Suzanne Bonamici on Abortion

Politicians should not be making health decisions for women

Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose: This priority is simple. Politicians should not be making health care decision for women, period.
Oregonians can trust me to vote to protect a woman's right to make her own reproductive health care decisions.

a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;

a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability

Opponent's argument against (Live Action News):
This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.

Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.

Bonamici co-sponsored S.217 & H.R.448

Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:

Access to safe, legal abortion services has been hindered in various ways, including blockades of health care facilities; restrictions on insurance coverage; restrictions on minors' ability to obtain services; and requirements that single out abortion providers.

These restrictions harm women's health by reducing access to the other essential health care services offered by the providers targeted by the restrictions, including contraceptive services.

The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions has been that a woman's ability to exercise her constitutional rights is dependent on the State in which she lives.

It is the purpose of this Act to protect women's health by ensuring that abortion services will continue to be available and that abortion providers are not singled out for medically unwarranted restrictions

Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(National Review, July 17, 2014):
During hearings on S. 1696, Senators heard many myths from abortion proponents about the "need" for the bill's evisceration of all life-affirming legislation.

Myth: Life-affirming laws are enacted "under the false pretext of health and safety."Fact: Induced abortion is associated with significant risks and potential harms to women.

Myth: "Where abortion services are restricted and unavailable, abortions still occur and are mostly unsafe."Fact: Where abortion is restricted, maternal mortality rates have decreased.

Myth: Admitting privileges laws are "not medically justified."Fact: Women with abortion complications are told to go to an emergency department. This would constitute malpractice in any other scenario.

Myth: Ultrasounds and their descriptions are "cruel and inhumane."Fact: Allowing women the opportunity to view their ultrasounds serves an important role in providing informed consent, enabling women to exercise true choice.